Wednesday, March 05, 2014

At a press conference for Kremlin-controlled media on Tuesday, Putin reiterated his position that Moscow has the right to use “all means” necessary to protect ethnic Russians and vital military assets in Ukraine, first among them the Black Sea fleet in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

The Camp plan is now "toxic"? I doubt more than one voter in a hundred could tell you what "Camp plan" refers to.

It's toxic in the GOP. Party establishment was told by money guys that the bank tax idea is dead. The plan is dead and has no supporters besides Camp, David. That to me says it's toxic.

"I like it" generally isn't a compelling argument. Of course, so-called progressives have spent the past 50 years spending other people's money without concern for ROI, so why should universal pre-K be any different?

Even if it has no long term impact, if you fund it with cigarette tax, you still have positive ROI. You have more families able to work, and fewer teenagers who start smoking.

If it has long term positive consequences, it just goes from win to epic win.

First of all, if it were just free babysitting, it would still be great policy. Babysitting is ruinously expensive--here in SF, it costs about 20K per year. If you want to be both pro-family and pro-work, free babysitting is great policy

Unfortunately for universal pre-K, there are too many schools in this country where K-12 is not much more than babysitting now.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of odds would you put on Ted Cruz being our next president? 2 to 1? 5 to 1? 10 to 1? 20 to 1? 50 to 1? 100 or more to 1? Since this is a sabermetric-friendly site, let's see you put some numbers behind your speculation. Who knows, maybe you can pick up some easy money.

I'm not sure yet. The Unskewed Guy hasn't updated his site lately.

Jokes aside, I don't know. It's at least a year until the GOP primary will be in full swing, and a lot can happen between now and then. Hell, if we get hit by another major terrorist attack, John "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain might start looking good again. The whole point of this discussion is that at this early date, events can and have had a major impact on conventional political wisdom, as Bush 41 learned the hard way.

Obviously there'd be no shame in revising your estimates in the light of future events (even though I called Reagan's 1980 election in 1976 and never had to change it during the next four years), but what about if the election were being held this November? That would be after the final numbers on ACA signups had been released and debated, after probably two or three more Benghazi hearings, after the Crimea imbroglio had had some time to sort itself out, and after two or three months of debates and other campaigning, with the GOP presumably in the driver's seat for the congressional races.

Under that scenario, what sort of odds would you put on Cruz's candidacy as of today? Again, I'm not trying to pin you down for any future predictions.

It's toxic in the GOP. Party establishment was told by money guys that the bank tax idea is dead. The plan is dead and has no supporters besides Camp, David. That to me says it's toxic.

What could be more popular nationally than supporting something Wall Street opposes?

Beyond that, again, just because the entirety of the Camp plan won't be enacted doesn't mean big parts of it couldn't be enacted.

Even if it has no long term impact, if you fund it with cigarette tax, you still have positive ROI. You have more families able to work, and fewer teenagers who start smoking.

It doesn't do much good to have "more families able to work" if there are no jobs for them. The people most likely to benefit from the "free babysitting" aspect of universal pre-K are lower-skilled workers of whom the labor market already has a huge surplus.

Booting out 5 million low-skilled illegal immigrants and/or ending chain migration would do far more for the average low-skilled worker than universal pre-K, but neither side seems to have the stomach for the former, and even the latter brings screams from lefties who seem to care more about potential future Dem voters than current struggling workers.

That's a strange way to look at it. Would Obama have won the "2006 nomination"? Ted Cruz, and a number of other potential GOP nominees, will need the next two years to increase their name recognition and demonstrate their Presidential bona fides. Can't skip that part of the process, especially when many of those potential candidates will be new to the national stage.

Obviously there'd be no shame in revising your estimates in the light of future events (even though I called Reagan's 1980 election in 1976 and never had to change it during the next four years), but what about if the election were being held this November? That would be after the final numbers on ACA signups had been released and debated, after probably two or three more Benghazi hearings, after the Crimea imbroglio had had some time to sort itself out, and after two or three months of debates and other campaigning, with the GOP presumably in the driver's seat for the congressional races.

Under that scenario, what sort of odds would you put on Cruz's candidacy as of today? Again, I'm not trying to pin you down for any future predictions.

I agree with #2706 re: using 2014 as an election year. Beyond that, it's tough to calculate odds when there are so many unknowns, not only re: events, but also re: GOP contenders. Among other things, if Jeb Bush runs, he'll have huge establishment money behind him on Day 1, but if he doesn't run, the race is much more open among a field that, with the possible exception of Chris Christie, is more similarly situated in terms of name recognition, finances, experience, etc.

It seems paradoxical but probably isn't, but Cruz probably has tougher odds of being the GOP nominee than he'd have in the general, since disappointed primary voters tend to come home in November anyway.

Love this. We're supposed to jump for joy with projected average deficits of "only" around $630 billion a year, which I guess is now officially the "new normal". It would be laughable if it wasn't so sickening.

Right so explain how the deficit is unsupportable. Especially since it has been plenty supportable the last few years. Yes the economy has been meh, but it is meh in a completely different way than if there were too much deficit.

You are pumping up a plan the GOP decided it hated. Good luck with that.

For what seems like the hundredth time, I don't care how the GOP establishment feels about the Camp plan (or just about anything else). The upside a candidate like Cruz could obtain by bucking the GOP establishment is the entire point.

Right so explain how the deficit is unsupportable. Especially since it has been plenty supportable the last few years.

Deficits are always "affordable" until they aren't. Even Detroit took years to go bankrupt, ignoring all the warnings along the way. Obama is on pace to close to double the national debt during his tenure. His successors will have some difficulty financing that if -- actually when -- interest rates return to normal.

For what seems like the hundredth time, I don't care how the GOP establishment feels about the Camp plan (or just about anything else).

And yet you parrot their lines at every opportunity. Hmmm.

Anyway what you are basically saying is Cruz might spin a line that possibly could be popular (but you have nothing to back it up). Whereas I have an already popular candidate (one of the most popular politicians in the country) and democrats have a more popular position on most things, like immigration and minimum wage.

But hey you have a candidate you think might win the primary who might have a plan (that no one else in the GOP can stand), but that plan might be popular.

That's a strange way to look at it. Would Obama have won the "2006 nomination"? Ted Cruz, and a number of other potential GOP nominees, will need the next two years to increase their name recognition and demonstrate their Presidential bona fides. Can't skip that part of the process, especially when many of those potential candidates will be new to the national stage.

I understand all that, but I was just asking for a preliminary number.

If you google "2016 presidential betting odds", the first two sites make Cruz a 33 to 1 shot to be our next president. Another betting site puts him at 16 to 1 to win the nomination, though it doesn't offer odds on the general election. Do either of you (YC or Joe) think that this overstates or understates Cruz's chances? If you had to put up your own money with those odds today, which way would you play it, with the opportunity to back out either way at any point in the future?

The only place in which I "parrot" GOP establishment talking points is in your imagination (and in those of some other lefties here).

I bash the GOP establishment at every opportunity, and disagree with its positions on immigration, gay marriage, and the estate tax, which are probably three of the top five issues among the GOP establishment crowd.

Anyway what you are basically saying is Cruz might spin a line that possibly could be popular (but you have nothing to back it up).

Nonsense. Ending subsidies for big business is massively popular. Closing tax loopholes for Wall Street and big business and "the 1 percent" is massively popular.

If you google "2016 presidential betting odds", the first two sites make Cruz a 33 to 1 shot to be our next president. Another betting site puts him at 16 to 1 to win the nomination, though it doesn't offer odds on the general election. Do either of you (YC or Joe) think that this overstates or understates Cruz's chances?

I was going to say 20:1 to win the nomination when I replied above, so that sounds about right on a gut level. But again, I don't know how one is supposed to calculate odds before at least knowing the field. Jeb Bush supposedly has several billionaires ready to support him as soon as he says he's in. (I know Ted Cruz has Peter Thiel in his corner, but I've never seen anything that suggests Thiel is willing to spend Koch or Adelson money on politics.)

I was going to say 20:1 to win the nomination when I replied above, so that sounds about right on a gut level. But again, I don't know how one is supposed to calculate odds before at least knowing the field. Jeb Bush supposedly has several billionaires ready to support him as soon as he says he's in. (I know Ted Cruz has Peter Thiel in his corner, but I've never seen anything that suggests Thiel is willing to spend Koch or Adelson money on politics.)

Of course on one level it's an absurd game, but since many books are willing to offer odds at this point, I figured you might want to play along. I won't press the point any further.

Republicans look at immigrants and see criminal invaders. Democrats see a promising voting bloc. Mr. Obama sees a political headache. His new sensitivity to their suffering highlights a paradox: He supports legislation that will turn millions into potential citizens, but then he tells them as he expels them: I can’t help you. Until he acts on his own to shield more immigrants from his deportation machinery, his “deep concern” looks shallow.

Closing tax loopholes for Wall Street and big business and "the 1 percent" is massively popular.

So why hasn't it happened?

Obama is on pace to close to double the national debt during his tenure.

That's a good thing. That's precisely what's supposed to happen during a recession, especially a finance-driven recession. For a nation that prints its own currency, sovereign debt is ####### accounting, and that accounting can be rendered totally irrelevant with a couple of simple (though significant) changes to the tax code.

His successors will have some difficulty financing that if -- actually when -- interest rates return to normal.

I won't be the first person to point out that conservatives believe the market is the best judge of everything... except the appropriate yield on US Treasury bonds. I don't know what 'normal' is, but it seems that old people haven't quite gotten over the idea that the 1970s and 1980s aren't necessarily the future.

I'll note that Joe didn't respond to my question about what specific points in the Camp plan stand out to him as particularly important ones for a Republican candidate to endorse. But anyway, I think the larger question is, even if a populist GOP candidate could outperform the party's current popularity level (which I'll buy)... and even if someone is going to try to win the nomination without Wall Street support by going for it (which is the hard part)... why would we think that that person would be Ted Cruz specifically? Christie, Huckabee, Rubio, Jindal, Bush -- anyone who hasn't yet pledged their life to the opposing philosophy (Ryan, Paul) could utilize that strategy. And I think those first two, at least, would be more natural ambassadors for it.

Simple: The elites of both parties are financed in large part by the people who would be most affected by such changes.

That's a good thing. That's precisely what's supposed to happen during a recession, especially a finance-driven recession. For a nation that prints its own currency, sovereign debt is ####### accounting, and that accounting can be rendered totally irrelevant with a couple of simple (though significant) changes to the tax code.

I'll note that Joe didn't respond to my question about what specific points in the Camp plan stand out to him as particularly important ones for a Republican candidate to endorse.

Yes, I did. See #2714, and some comments on the last page.

But anyway, I think the larger question is, even if a populist GOP candidate can do well (which I'll buy), and even if someone is going to try to win the nomination without Wall Street support by going for it (which is the hard part)... why would we think that that person would be Ted Cruz specifically?

I never claimed to have inside knowledge of Cruz's game plan. I just pointed out that he's been much more willing than most national GOP types to buck the establishment and challenge the status quo.

Deficits are always "affordable" until they aren't. Even Detroit took years to go bankrupt, ignoring all the warnings along the way. Obama is on pace to close to double the national debt during his tenure. His successors will have some difficulty financing that if -- actually when -- interest rates return to normal.

speaking of, does anyone at all want to talk about the fact that the michigan legislature stiffed the city (and many other localities) on close to 1 billion dollars worth of state sales tax revenue over the last decade?

I bash the GOP establishment at every opportunity, and disagree with its positions on immigration, gay marriage, and the estate tax, which are probably three of the top five issues among the GOP establishment crowd.

Do either of you (YC or Joe) think that this overstates or understates Cruz's chances?

Who knows? Far too early to tell. None of the likely 2014 GOP candidates is that well positioned - no front runner(s) like most years. The 2014 election is the "first primary" - some potential candidates are on the ballot (Walker, Kasich) and need to win, some will be campaigning and raising money for others. Cruz would have a long way to go to get the nomination, and I'm not so sure that running this time is his best long-term move. Seems likely to be a race that starts with a large field of candidates, gets winnowed first by fund raising and polls, then by debates and primaries. Cruz might do well, but I certainly don't claim to have seen enough of him to know. However, I do think someone who can handle the give & take of appellate argument, including vigorous questioning from the bench, might do well in the Q & A aspects of the campaign, such as the Sunday Morning Shows, press interviews, town halls and debates. Remember how well John Roberts did in his Senate confirmation hearings? I don't think Cruz is quite in that class, but I really need to see a lot more of him to make an informed judgment.

I bash the GOP establishment at every opportunity, and disagree with its positions on immigration, gay marriage, and the estate tax, which are probably three of the top five issues among the GOP establishment crowd.

For clarity's sake, isn't the immigration position you disagree with a moderate one anyhow, which is why you disagree with it? Lastly, there is maybe one vote in 100,000 that's being cast in the next election with even a glimmer of thought for the estate tax.

You're obviously not illiterate, so I guess you're just being dishonest.

Disagreeing with the GOP establishment on at least three of their top five issues is well beyond "token disagreements." And I've bashed plenty of GOP establishment types, from John Boehner and John McCain to Grover Norquist and Chris Christie.

For clarity's sake, isn't the immigration position you disagree with a moderate one anyhow, which is why you disagree with it?

How does this matter? But just to play along, there's nothing "moderate" about the elites of the GOP conspiring to depress the wages of working people via mass low-skilled immigration.

Lastly, there is maybe one vote in 100,000 that's being cast in the next election with even a glimmer of thought for the estate tax.

The estate tax, and all of the various loopholes thereof (e.g., life insurance loopholes), is hugely important to the GOP establishment, and one of the main impediments to the party taking a more populist tack.

I'm not much of an Obama fan, so no points awarded. Even granting that, you're really not supposed to run up debt during the good times -- that's when crowding out actually can happen -- and it's not exactly a news item when the opposition party whines about the debt.

You're obviously not illiterate, so I guess you're just being dishonest.

How does the saying go? I've been called worse by better?

How does this matter?

I can't believe you're serious here, but as you probably are, equating your disagreement to the left of the GOP with your disagreement to the right of the GOP in a list as if they make for an equal non-parroting argument is willfully misleading. (I hope, at least, as the alternative is worse.) The same goes with your claim for "bashing" the GOP, as if somehow you're not parroting.... another rather large portion of the GOP. Holy crap.

I can't believe you're serious here, but as you probably are, equating your disagreement to the left of the GOP with your disagreement to the right of the GOP in a list as if they make for an equal non-parroting argument is willfully misleading. (I hope, at least, as the alternative is worse.) The same goes with your claim for "bashing" the GOP, as if somehow you're not parroting.... another rather large portion of the GOP. Holy crap.

To the extent that I can decipher this, it looks like a combination of poor reading comprehension, willful dishonesty, and some goalpost-shifting.

***

Joe, non-trolly question for you:
If you support a more populist GOP, why not Huckabee? IMO he's a better politician than Cruz, and more of a genuine populist.

I disagree that Huckabee is a better politician than Cruz — see, e.g., some of Huckabee's comments about women — but he's also way too heavy on the social conservatism. That's a potential flaw with Cruz as well, but I believe Cruz is less likely to press those issues or at least much less likely to fall into performance-artist mode. (Cruz can always send his old man to handle those efforts, if need be. Ha ha.)

That all I do is "parrot" GOP establishment talking points, which is absurd. (Maybe you don't understand what's meant by the phrase "GOP establishment"? I'd understand if people accused me of occasionally "parroting" Tea Party talking points, but the "establishment" claim is specious.)

I'm supporting Ted Cruz for president in 2016, I was in the "anyone but Romney" camp until well after he sealed the nomination in 2012, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain in 2008. If that's your idea of someone who loves the GOP establishment, you couldn't be more wrong.

I disagree that Huckabee is a better politician than Cruz — see, e.g., some of Huckabee's comments about women — but he's also way too heavy on the social conservatism. That's a potential flaw with Cruz as well, but I believe Cruz is less likely to press those issues or at least much less likely to fall into performance-artist mode.

Must restrain Dr. Seuss jokes...

Huckabee is a good indicator of the source of any funding for a populist candidate for the R's. Your hypothetical candidate will need lots and lots of money from mouth-breathing churchgoers, if he or she plans on challenging The Elites. Good luck defending the ultimate positions of such a candidate.

That all I do is "parrot" GOP establishment talking points, which is absurd.

I have no problem saying you're not parroting anything. That's small-minded. They are simply your positions. The thing is, a majority (not entirety) of your positions are held by a majority (not entirety) of America's GOP population. If you want to claim you've gone rogue, have at it, but I'm not seeing it.

I have no problem saying you're not parroting anything. That's small-minded. They are simply your positions. The thing is, a majority (not entirety) of your positions are held by a majority (not entirety) of America's GOP population. If you want to claim you've gone rogue, have at it, but I'm not seeing it.

Isn't there a wide swath of land in between, Lassus? OK, so maybe Joe's no "rogue." OTOH, from this vantage point he appears more at odds with GOP leadership than many lefties here are with POTUS.

Holding most of the GOP's positions - and wanting them to move farther right on the ones he doesn't hold - does not put a wide swath of land between himself and the "established" GOP. Especially one already in some accepted level of schism currently over these very issues. YMMV.

I'm not the one who typed, "The same goes with your claim for "bashing" the GOP, as if somehow you're not parroting.... another rather large portion of the GOP." So which is it?

Inasmuch as you're working on some kind of gotcha, when you are only hitting the GOP to get them to go farther right, it does not strike those on the left as consequential. Especially when a massive part of your own party agrees with you as you're attacking your own party to go farther right. YOU think you are bashing them, we (I) think it is more of the same in varying degrees; the impetus to be "Aw yeah, yer killin' 'em!" is nonexistent.

And if you think that Obamacare sucks because it's not single-payer, Lassus, is that also "more of the same in varying degrees?"

And how is Joe's support for gay marriage and opposition to corporate welfare to the right of the GOP establishment? (Or if one does consider the latter position as being to the GOP's right, how is it so objectionable?)

I'm not quite so sure that there are any "GOP establishment talking points" right now

we have the Faux News disseminated talking points
we have the "movement conservative" or teaper talking points

(and of course there's considerable overlap there)

and the "establishment" or what we used to mean by that is seemingly floundering and unfocused
Boehner & Co seem to be jumping from one thing to the next. I grew up with a very disciplined GOP at both the local and National level, that seems largely eviscerated now

By the way some of the disagreement is centered around the idea of the GOP establishment. It is always a bit tricky to establish a baseline for the out of power party (regarding the presidency).

With Democrats, what Obama is and does is the de facto establishment, the baseline. But what is it for the GOP? Personally I think the Tea Party baseline is pretty much the GOP baseline, since those that disagree with them have been primaried or have mostly fallen in line. But clearly some folks think of it as the old guard money washington insiders.

Simple: The elites of both parties are financed in large part by the people who would be most affected by such changes.

But Ted Cruz, Man Of The People, is going to walk in and change that? Against the entrenched power of 1) the opposition Dems who haven't done anything in 10 years and 2) the even more entrenched power of the GOP that hates him and who is wound even tighter around the Wall Street finger? That's some Hopey Changey right there, buddy.

With Democrats, what Obama is and does is the de facto establishment, the baseline. But what is it for the GOP? Personally I think the Tea Party baseline is pretty much the GOP baseline, since those that disagree with them have been primaried or have mostly fallen in line. But clearly some folks think of it as the old guard money washington insiders.

What, effectively, has the Tea Party accomplished aside from perhaps, in 2014, winning the Senate back for the "insiders?" Aside from torpedoing the GOP brand nationwide, I mean?

What, effectively, has the Tea Party accomplished aside from perhaps, in 2014, winning the Senate back for the "insiders?" Aside from torpedoing the GOP brand nationwide, I mean?

When was the last time the non-Tea party won an Intra-GOP fight? Some Washington old guard have beaten back Tea party challengers, but by going way to the right and essentially adopting their positions.

Have you seen the plots of votes versus how blue/red a district is? the Dems vote more liberal as their district becomes more liberal, the GOP votes a flat line, basically as one, no matter how liberal their district is. They are a unified party, and a very conservative one that basically votes together and follows the Tea Party positions.

I am not suggesting the Tea Party is a massive general election force, simply that I see them as the GOP baseline, the new establishment.

Which is not a huge concession, seeing as how the last time they ran that bluff it went horribly.

This is you pissing from the outside of the tent in. For the Tea Party True Believers (TPTB), it was a major defeat. Not only did they lose the internal battle with the DC villagers (Boehner, McConnell,etc), they lost it before it even became a fight. You asked for an example of when the DC villager section of the GOP won an internal battle. I gave you one. Being told "not only are we not going to fight for what you want, we're not even going to send out troops out to battle here, because it's a stupid waste of bullets" is a major loss for the TPTB faction internally.

Do you think the Tea Party is not the baseline for the GOP? If not then what is?

I don't think there's a strong line of demarcation between one or the other. I think the "Tea Party" properly understood is the equivalent of the old religious right, and that the DC villager power structure is doing to the "Tea Party" base what it did with the religious right in the 80s and 90s; riding the tiger as long as they can. I think there was a brief flash of the tiger turning on them highlighted by Palinism and the epic failure of the government shut down, but that the tides have turned there and the power structure is taming that ride again.

I don't think the "GOP" baseline and the "Tea Party" baseline overlap or contradict much at all. The DC Villager is interested in currying favor with K-street and Wall Street to keep the cash flowing. The TPTB is interested in agitating the grass roots against gay marriage and immigration reform. As long as the TPTB don't indicate that they are serious about raising taxes on the K-street/Wall Street crowd they don't pose a serious concern for the DC Villagers or their goals, outside of losing potentially winnable elections (the Todd Akin problem.)

You need to define these "goals" and explain how they are at odds with the DC Village GOP's goals.

You are missing the point (perhaps I am stating it poorly). If you want to know what the baseline goals, strategy are, look to the Tea party. The decision on whether to hold this or that a hostage is purely a tactical decision. Boehner (and others) decided that it was a bad tactic to try to get to a goal (based on recent past events).

The Tea Party might disagree with that tactical decision, but it is most certainly not a strategic argument they are having on that issue.

And I am not "pissing in". Tactics might be important, and they can perceive it as a defeat of whatever scale they like - it is their defeat after all. What I am doing is categorizing however, analyzing.

All differences are not the same. A disagreement over tactics is much different, has much different consequences, and says different things about the GOP than a disagreement over strategy or goals does.

So I will ask my question more specifically. When was the last time the GOP acted against a tea party strategy or goal? Some parts of the GOP wanted immigration reform, the tea party said NO and it died very quickly.

When was the last time the GOP acted against a tea party strategy or goal? Some parts of the GOP wanted immigration reform, the tea party said NO and it died very quickly.

Immigration reform is not a hill the Villagers are willing to die on. I guarantee you that if Kehoskie's wet dream of Ted Cruz leading a populist insurgency where the "Tea Party" actually suggests raising taxes on the Wall Street money, the GOP will act against the goals of the "Tea Party." This is why JoeK's premise of a Ted Cruz presidency based on populist outrage is absurd to start.

Immigration reform is not a hill the Villagers are willing to die on. I guarantee you that if Kehoskie's wet dream of Ted Cruz leading a populist insurgency where the "Tea Party" actually suggests raising taxes on the Wall Street money, the GOP will act against the goals of the "Tea Party." This is why JoeK's premise of a Ted Cruz presidency based on populist outrage is absurd to start.

Well we agree on the "absurd" part certainly. I have seen not much indication that the Tea Party wants to raise taxes though, on anyone. If that comes to pass, that the populist and corporatist wings of the GOP* end up on opposite sides of the issue, and both decide it is a first order (willing to die on the hill) issue then we shall see. I just don't think that very likely.

In terms of what we have seen on the ground is basically all the politicians running end up toeing the Tea party line on issues. So that even when the Washington insider wins (beats back the primary foe) they are still fairly coopted by the Tea Party. Which is why I think they are now the baseline for the GOP. YMMV though, of course.

* Note, Team Blue has its own populist and corporate wings also, of course, and I am not implying otherwise.

Well we agree on the "absurd" part certainly. I have seen not much indication that the Tea Party wants to raise taxes though, on anyone. If that comes to pass, that the populist and corporatist wings of the GOP* end up on opposite sides of the issue, and both decide it is a first order (willing to die on the hill) issue then we shall see. I just don't think that very likely.

The GOP coalition is an odd duck to look at from outside, but it seems to be feasibly bonded internally.

It takes some more-than-wilful cognitive dissonance to parse that as "Nate Silver doesn't know his ass from his elbow". Acknowledging that the calendar favors the GOP, noting that it's a long way until November, that polling is sparse at this time, turnout is key, and 60-40 is hardly overwhelming odds and closing with a fundraising appeal seems both prudent and pretty truthful.

And in any event it's a far more measured response than just declaring Silver is flat wrong and substituting a fantasy reality like the GOP does when confronted with the like. That's the one thing that continues to give the progressive community hope, in any election - their counterparts can be counted on to underestimate or dismiss anything that isn't happy talk in line with their pre-existing beliefs, regardless of how it actually is.

The need for conservatives to tout their "independence" is a pretty good indicator of what they really think of how much support there is for conservative policy and conservative policymakers.

But this is a center-right country!

Not that I disagree with you, but the impetus for conservatives to tout their "independence" doesn't impact the "center-right country" talking point, because the reason self-styled conservative "independents" most often cite for breaking with the GOP at large is because they're "too centrist."

Re: immigration and "populism": I think immigration is one of those issues where polling can be dependent on the phrasing of the question and quite misleading. (Which I suppose is all issues, to one extent or another.) If you ask people whether they philosophically object to illegal immigration, they're going to say that they do. Who supports breaking the law? But when you present them with a specific example of an illegal immigrant who has worked hard and not been a problem, I think the majority of Americans sympathize with that person more than they resent him.

So, I realize that the anti-immigration narrative is that the masses want an immigration crackdown and it's the elites who are stopping it, but I don't think that's the case. I fully acknowledge that, when we say that we're going to forgive the immigrants already here but be tougher going forward, the "tougher going forward" part is baloney -- it just means we'll be doing the same thing again in a couple of decades. But, I think we keep getting that because we keep asking for it.

Just in general, any conservative who thinks that the masses secretly want far-right positions is exactly as wrong as any liberal who thinks the masses secretly want far-left positions. I mean, that's true by definition. That's what "far" means.

See, now here is a real example of a liberal taking issue with Silver - Paul Krugman. it's criticism I don't find particularly compelling, but even it is nuanced, and basically claims that Silver believes that there is no such thing as expertise outside of data analysis. I disagree, but it's such a long way from the outright dismissal of him from the right that the comparison of the two responses speaks for itself.

So, I realize that the anti-immigration narrative is that the masses want an immigration crackdown and it's the elites who are stopping it, but I don't think that's the case. [...]

Just in general, any conservative who thinks that the masses secretly want far-right positions is exactly as wrong as any liberal who thinks the masses secretly want far-left positions. I mean, that's true by definition. That's what "far" means.

Sure, but there's nothing "far right" about securing the border and tracking exits so that we aren't in this same situation again 10 years from now, either with or without a present-day amnesty, and doing so is highly popular in poll after poll after poll. However, the elites of both parties have done everything possible to thwart border security, the use of E-Verify, and the implementation of an exit-tracking system — after passing, with much grandstanding, laws requiring those very things.

I disagree, but it's such a long way from the outright dismissal of him from the right that the comparison of the two responses speaks for itself.

That's a bit disingenuous, no? At least much of the right-wing opposition stems from the reality that Nate camped out with Daily Kos for a year and not surprisingly has a left-wing perspective when not crunching numbers.

See, now here is a real example of a liberal taking issue with Silver - Paul Krugman. it's criticism I don't find particularly compelling, but even it is nuanced, and basically claims that Silver believes that there is no such thing as expertise outside of data analysis. I disagree, but it's such a long way from the outright dismissal of him from the right that the comparison of the two responses speaks for itself.

The problem with the pushback on Silver is that it seems hellbent on misinterpreting what Silver is doing... I don't think he's that there's no room for analysis outside of data - he's just saying 1)data is what "I"/the new 538 will do, and 2)whatever undefined analysis exists outside of the data component I'm doing, the state of the state of it is pretty shitty.

I likewise think a lot of Nate's critics right now are falling into the same trap people always fall/fell into regarding the various projection systems, be they ZIPs, PECOTA, CHONE, or whatever... It's not a matter of picking out the always-present coulda/shoulda/wouldas and using them as a blunt instrument against the 'model', it's a matter of the data showing likelihood of X (or a whole bunch of X1, X2, X3, etc sets).

Without getting into some of Krugman's other, nonpolitcal critiques (well, non-political in the sense that anything regarding climate change somehow has to pass through the "Al Gore is FAT!" filter) - Silver's numbers on the Senate in particular aren't all that surprising and really don't require a model, either.

I mean, if anything -- Nate's numbers on the Senate came out one hell of a cheerier than I'd have hoped... The dems have one of the most brutal Senate maps in recent memory to defend, chock full of wholly underwhelming candidates trying to hold most of those seats, coupled with low Obama approvals, including traditional poor performance by Dems in midterms, plus the historical in-power President struggles.

I said previously that I'd take an even money bet that the Dems somehow find a way to hang to a 50/50 Senate -- his numbers say I ought to ask for slight odds on that bet and I'd certainly love to take them... sometimes you gotta roll the hard six, though.

At least much of the right-wing opposition stems from the reality that Nate camped out with Daily Kos for a year and not surprisingly has a left-wing perspective when not crunching numbers.

Much of the right wing push back against Nate's work with the NYT was your garden variety "mainstream media out to get the conservatives" paranoia, yes. Which is pretty close to what Spike is saying. The wingers have spent so long telling themselves they're the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy that they've internalized that belief to the point that anything that exists outside of their preference bubble is immediately written off as part of that VLWC. I.e. "we don't trust Nate Silver because he votes for Democrats and works for the NYT as part of the MSM, thus Nate Silver can't be correct." It's faith over reason in every aspect.

It won't be shocking to see some of the Dem organs turn similar talking points while attempting to drive some turnout in 2014. They have an vested interest in attempting to "create a different reality," after all. Just as you do when you talk up questionable RW spin.

The numbers are what they are. There's an even-odds chance the GOP rides midterm fundamentals to control of the Senate. The chances of a 10+ seat wave election are very small. In 2016, barring a sea change in fundamentals, the Dems will ride back to the pole position.

In unusually barbed criticism of a fellow prosecutor and fellow Democrat, Philadelphia's district attorney rebuked state Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane on Friday, saying she had needlessly killed a solid corruption investigation - and besmirched the prosecutors who built the case.

In an op-ed to be published in The Inquirer on Sunday, Seth Williams faulted Kane for shutting down a "sting" operation that caught at least five Philadelphia Democrats, including four state representatives, on tape accepting money or gifts. "She apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes - and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?" he wrote.
. . .
Williams blasted that decision. "The Attorney General of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges," he wrote. "As a DA, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don't have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it's done."

No - his postings at Kos (or anywhere else) have been founded in analysis, not partisanship. That you can't seem to not conflate the two is a fine example why I said a comparison of the responses is exceptionally telling. Attack his methodology, not where he posts it.

The problem with the pushback on Silver is that it seems hellbent on misinterpreting what Silver is doing... I don't think he's that there's no room for analysis outside of data - he's just saying 1)data is what "I"/the new 538 will do, and 2)whatever undefined analysis exists outside of the data component I'm doing, the state of the state of it is pretty shitty.

I think there's two specific forms of push back that 538 will get. The first is what I'm discussing @2778; political operatives with a vested interest in changing the narrative, and thus changing the voting end game, will push back against the data-as-destiny aspects of Nate's polling aggregates. The degree of success they have is open to debate, but probably it won't be a lot.

The second vector of major push back will come from people who talk and interpret the political horse races for a living. The talking heads. Chris Mathews, etc. Pundits who have cushy digs in DC from the cash they make making up #### on Fox and MSNBC. That push back will be based in resentment of a guy doing their jobs better than they do, via math, in much the same way Harold Reynolds really doesn't like sabermetrics.

Nate Silver's political track record is such that you have to take his election predictions seriously, and in the case of his Senate predictions it's just one more wakeup call if any Democrat really needed one. The DSSC's response should be read for what it is---and probably what it should be, given their mission---an attempt to walk the fine line between concern and discouragement. (EDIT: coke to Sam on that point.)

But what Nate's pushing on climate change is another story. If you follow all the links in the Krugman piece it's hard not to detect a whiff in Nate of that old "Everything you think you know is wrong" syndrome that's the marketing pitch of pretty much every "contrarian" website these days. I just hope that Nate doesn't fall into that easy trap, in an attempt to increase eyeballs.

No - his postings at Kos (or anywhere else) have been founded in analysis, not partisanship.

OK. Remind me this the next time Clapper or anyone else puts forth a poll from Rasmussen or Fox News/Opinion Dynamics. Silver's work is quite good on balance but his earlier work was with a left-wing publication. Therefore, it was understandable that some wondered whether he was playing loose with the numbers.

The second vector of major push back will come from people who talk and interpret the political horse races for a living. The talking heads. Chris Mathews, etc. Pundits who have cushy digs in DC from the cash they make making up #### on Fox and MSNBC. That push back will be based in resentment of a guy doing their jobs better than they do, via math, in much the same way Harold Reynolds really doesn't like sabermetrics.

The only proper perspective on the likes of Matthews and his fellow talking heads on the cable stations is that of an anthropologist. How anyone would ever take them seriously for any other reason I'll never know.

But what Nate's pushing on climate change is another story. If you follow all the links in the Krugman piece it's hard not to detect a whiff in Nate of that old "Everything you think you know is wrong" syndrome

I think the big current problem with 538's climate stuff is mostly that instead of hiring someone who is to that field what Nate Silver is to election/polling analysis, they hired a guy who's analogue is Dean Chambers-
Nate's problem is that he doesn't know that [yet], just as many people unfamiliar with how polling works really didn't know that what Silver was doing was [statistically/methodologically] valid and what Chambers was doing was nonsensical bullshit.

I think the big current problem with 538's climate stuff is mostly that instead of hiring someone who is to that field what Nate Silver is to election/polling analysis, they hired a guy who's analogue is Dean Chambers-
Nate's problem is that he doesn't know that [yet], just as many people unfamiliar with how polling works really didn't know that what Silver was doing was [statistically/methodologically] valid and what Chambers was doing was nonsensical ########.

If true, this would mean Nate is incompetent. Thus, I have a hard time believing it's true.

OK. Remind me this the next time Clapper or anyone else puts forth a poll from Rasmussen or Fox News/Opinion Dynamics. Silver's work is quite good on balance but his earlier work was with a left-wing publication.

Was he doing the numbers only from the Kos polling, or was he doing the aggregate polling numbers while hosted at Kos? If it's the former, you have a point. If it's the latter, you're writing off a better methodology because you don't like the political positions of the site host.

Remind me this the next time Clapper or anyone else puts out a poll from Rasmussen or Fox News/Opinion Dynamics.

There's nothing wrong with posting polls from any source, as long as you factor in their past track record and whatever systematic bias their results have indicated. What's just stupid is taking a single poll or two (especially this far before an election) and pretending that it's like reading the old 538 on election eve.

The only proper perspective on the likes of Matthews and his fellow talking heads on the cable stations is that of an anthropologist. How anyone would ever take them seriously for any other reason I'll never know

People take astrology seriously. People take Jenni McCarthy seriously. People are not rational actors.

Some are wondering why you wouldn't just look them up and read them before offering a characterization.

As I said, Silver's analytical work over the years has proven solid but you're situated on Pluto if you think a young, no-name dude whose work appeared on a far-left site calling for Bush's impeachment shouldn't get as much scrutiny as Josh Jordan ("@NumbersMuncher) received from your crowd in 2012.

Was he doing the numbers only from the Kos polling, or was he doing the aggregate polling numbers while hosted at Kos? If it's the former, you have a point. If it's the latter, you're writing off a better methodology because you don't like the political positions of the site host.

At minimum, the fact Nate chose Daily Kos as the place to post his writings for many months betrays his rooting interest. There are a hundred places he could have posted if he was trying to maintain a truly neutral appearance.

By all accounts, FiveThirtyEight became much bigger than anything Nate had imagined. If he had a redo, knowing then what he knows now, he might have skipped his early association with Daily Kos. (Of course, that would simply have obscured his rooting interest rather than made it known, so what might have been good for Nate wouldn't necessarily have been good for us. On the other hand, but for Nate's following at DK, the Obama campaign might not have been so willing to give him exclusive access to their internal polling back in 2008, which had to have been hugely helpful.)

Some of you all may remember an intense discussion on South Africa in this thread (or rather, one of its ancestors) when Mandela died. I was a virulent anti-Mandela, anti-South Africa participant. Well, I just came back from a two week trip to South Africa. It was an interesting (and illuminating) experience.

(1) I withdraw my criticism of Mandela. South Africa is a miracle.

(2) Seeing the impact of gross income inequality in South Africa just reinforced to me the importance, in this country, of achieving a flatter income curve.

(3) Seeing the ineptness and corruption of the South African government reinforced to me the importance of making sure that the federal government is not the mediator of such wealth redistribution.

(4) The crime in South Africa is horrible, and reminded me of growing up in NYC in the 80's (except worse). The corrosive influence of the crime - not just the impact upon victims, but the way it diminishes the quality of life of all people - is unbelievable. If anything, I've gotten even more hawkish on crime and incarceration. In 2 weeks in South Africa, in some of the safest and wealthiest places in the country, I was the victim of one successful (petty) crime and two other attempts.

a young, no-name dude whose work appeared on a far-left site calling for Bush's impeachment shouldn't get as much scrutiny as Josh Jordan

My point exactly - you couldn't be bothered to scrutinize, that was the right's problem all along. They never bothered, assumed it was partisan (because all their stuff is) and went with disparagement and ad homs instead like "far-left' and dismissed him out of hand instead of looking for substantive disagreement (or agreement even, perish the thought).

At minimum, the fact Nate chose Daily Kos as the place to post his writings for many months betrays his rooting interest. There are a hundred places he could have posted if he was trying to maintain a truly neutral appearance.

Please. He posted to Kos because it was easy and free to jack into the Kos "contributing blog" model and because that was the primary audience for "reality based" analysis at the time. He moved to NYT when 538 took off. Now he's doing the Grantland-for-stats-dorks thing via ESPN.

The idea that you and yours would have taken his findings at face value if he had published in the WaPo or NYT first is absurd on its face. You would have whinged about "mainstream media" and "liberal media bias" until the heel of reality came crushing down on your face election night.

Some of you all may remember an intense discussion on South Africa in this thread (or rather, one of its ancestors) when Mandela died. I was a virulent anti-Mandela, anti-South Africa participant. Well, I just came back from a two week trip to South Africa. It was an interesting (and illuminating) experience.

(1) I withdraw my criticism of Mandela. South Africa is a miracle.

(2) Seeing the impact of gross income inequality in South Africa just reinforced to me the importance, in this country, of achieving a flatter income curve.

(3) Seeing the ineptness and corruption of the South African government reinforced to me the importance of making sure that the federal government is not the mediator of such wealth redistribution.

(4) The crime in South Africa is horrible, and reminded me of growing up in NYC in the 80's (except worse). The corrosive influence of the crime - not just the impact upon victims, but the way it diminishes the quality of life of all people - is unbelievable. If anything, I've gotten even more hawkish on crime and incarceration. In 2 weeks in South Africa, in some of the safest and wealthiest places in the country, I was the victim of one successful (petty) crime and two other attempts.

While I would take issue with some of your observations, I am very glad you were able to make a visit, and commend your willingness to revise your opinion. It's a tremendous (and tremendously misunderstood) place.